I agree with this. I’m not trying to say that legalizing the sale of votes will “save democracy” in any way; I just wonder if we should treat its prohibition like we treat the prohibition of drugs. The difference between voting and buying drugs, obviously, is that voting is generally used for coercion. Certainly, this isn’t something I want to create a market for, but couldn’t it be argued that this is better than the alternative? Perhaps having politicians who suffered losses for enacting destructive policies would be better than having politicians who suffered no consequences whatsoever.
Honestly, I guess I just don’t see the point of making an issue out of it.
Voting for politicians to control a violently coercive state has nothing to do with a voluntary society.
No one who is pro-democracy is going to accept this, they will see it as a corruption. You will need to first convince them that their views on democracy are flawed (and that there is a better alternative), before they will find this “corruption” acceptable, and at that point, why bother with it at all?
I think it would be far easier to explain to people the flaws in democracy itself, than to try to get them to understand the “potential benefits” of legalized vote sales while still supporting democracy.
It actually sort of sounds like exactly the type of rhetoric someone would want to pin libertarians into “Those libertarians think votes should be for sale! That way the rich can buy and corrupt even more of our government from us, the people! I told you they were insane, could you imagine what would happen if they actually had their way with everything!?”… Admittedly this could be used for just about any argument, but seeing as how voting doesn’t really have the same relevance in Ancapland as it does in Democraticstatia, it could end up being very obfuscating with little return.
We shouldn’t support prohibition of vote sales, as it doesnt violate the NAP… But personally I wouldn’t bring it up, unless someone specifically asked me if i would support it, and I would confirm, immediately followed by why i don’t think voting or the state is legitimate in the first place so i de facto support it, in support of my own beliefs because i don’t support coercive aggression which is what enforcement would require, but it’s a part of a system i do not support so i don’t care what effect it has on that system anyway.
“Defense, courts, etc. Yes, these are services. Yes, it would be wonderful if they were supplied on a competitive market, but my question has to do with whether legalizing a market for votes is a step in this direction.”
I know your question does. And I thought I had pointed out why it’s clearly not a step in the right direction, although it seems - not clearly enough.
“The money that the politicians pay the voters in order to get elected.”
Oh yeah, you mean like what happens right now?
Money that they’ve previously earned."
Ohhhh that they have previously “earned”… Geez, we all know how much industrialists & capitalists love competition! John D. Rockefeller & his mates didn’t try use the state because they couldn’t form cartels on the market… they actually tried to reduce state intervention, right?
“Instead of discussing this idea (which may very well be erroneous), you would rather insult and dismiss me for daring to disagree with you.”
Do you work at Harvard? You should apply - they need folks like you who are good at re-writing history. Scan up, I thought others and you would appreciate the video [which is relevent]… yet it’s not a contribution? lol You dismissed it & that would be absoutely fine with me, if you actually provided a reason why… instead of ignoring it like a child.
“Perhaps having politicians who suffered losses for enacting destructive policies would be better than having politicians who suffered no consequences whatsoever.”
How on earth are they going to suffer loses? They’re temporarily in control of the state, the final arbiter and ultimate descision maker… they help scratch someone elses back, they get theirs scratched… how does voting change anything? It is not constitutive. Voting as an issue is a red herring & a useless discussion.
You can also make democracy better by limiting who can vote. Smart people make better voters (support free trade, etc) among other limits (ex: property owners). However, it would take such an incredible amount of energy and political capital to achieve this, why don’t you just convince people of ancap instead?
I think it would not make for a noticeable difference. Consider a party that bought and received 45% of the votes for its candidate who came in second in a given district. It just lost a massive investment. For that reason I think you would see a sort of collusion where parties competed in vote buying only in swing districts.
Consequantially the chance that somebody would be offered to sell his vote would be quite small. It would only apply to people in a small minority of districts.
That’s a good point.
I think it would not make for a noticeable difference. Consider a party that bought and received 45% of the votes for its candidate who came in second in a given district. It just lost a massive investment. For that reason I think you would see a sort of collusion where parties competed in vote buying only in swing districts.
That only means that someone would have to buy up all the votes in a district at once to, ultimately, “buy” a vote in government. There would still be a market for votes in place.
"But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one’s activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.
First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I’m referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one’s platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California." - What Must Be Done, HHH
Really? I mean, really? What is being voted on? I can think of a terrible scenario just off the top of my head. Let us say you are voting on a president…someone in the executive branch…or even legislative. Doesn’t matter. A bureaucrat. People want money. Special interest groups have lots and lots of money. They buy lots of people’s votes and use their excessive voting power as leverage to get laws written that benefit themselves. Voting on health care bills? It behooves anyone with potential profits that could come of such a bill to vote in favor of it. They will buy lots of votes. This is just a way to make lobbying easier.
Really? I mean, really? What is being voted on?
Ownership of the state.
Apart from the immorality of what a vote means, and other critiques of democracy, I don’t think it’s a bad idea.
The money used on advertisement would instead go through a bargaining process with all vote sellers. More efficient in that sense, and voters may actually care what their vote is worth, for once.